Is this what society has come to?

Scouse

Job-worshipper and all round follower of cunts.
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
27,475
What difference does it make @Deebs?

I'm male (sex) gender must be cis (presumably that's what we understand as straight - I never bothered to learn) but neither of those labels make a blind bit of difference to me.

Apparently I'm also a cunt. And patronising, arrogant and hypocritical. All labels people use to more accurately describe me.

I don't get upset about them, so why would I get upset about this?


The kids'll get it. And they'll look at us old people and our outrage and lack of understanding the same way we look at grandma and laugh at the fact she's racist and gets angry about the fact she doesn't understand you can watch one TV channel whilst her video recorder records another.

:)
 

Deebs

Chief Arsewipe
Staff member
Moderator
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 11, 1997
Messages
9,075,046
What difference does it make @Deebs?

I'm male (sex) gender must be cis (presumably that's what we understand as straight - I never bothered to learn) but neither of those labels make a blind bit of difference to me.

Apparently I'm also a cunt. And patronising, arrogant and hypocritical. All labels people use to more accurately describe me.

I don't get upset about them, so why would I get upset about this?


The kids'll get it. And they'll look at us old people and our outrage and lack of understanding the same way we look at grandma and laugh at the fact she's racist and gets angry about the fact she doesn't understand you can watch one TV channel whilst her video recorder records another.

:)
Why should I receive a label just because a small minority demands I need one to suit their narrative?

I don't need the label CIS to mean the gender I am given at birth, I understand the gender term male to mean I was born a male and still identify as a male.
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
16,767
I had to google what CIS meant, what a lot of waffle.
The logic is sound, take away the baseline population's "privilege" of not having to self-identify (because our sex is enough for us and we don't care about "gender") by making everyone do it, whether you agreed to the idea or not. Orwell taught us about the power of language as a means of control, and trans-activists got the message big time; but unlike @Scouse I think this is genuinely going to blow up in Trans-people's faces, and so do a lot of actual trans people:

 

Gwadien

Uneducated Northern Cretin
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
16,531
Tbh, getting annoyed about being assigned a gender you don't believe in is like reading a horoscope and getting annoyed with what it's going to tell you what you're going to do with your life even though you don't believe in them.

Live and let live as far as I'm concerned.
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
16,767
Tbh, getting annoyed about being assigned a gender you don't believe in is like reading a horoscope and getting annoyed with what it's going to tell you what you're going to do with your life even though you don't believe in them.

Live and let live as far as I'm concerned.
The assignment is irrelevant; the motivation for the assignment is relevant. If its not a big deal, why relabel 98% of the population?
 

Gwadien

Uneducated Northern Cretin
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
16,531
The assignment is irrelevant; the motivation for the assignment is relevant. If its not a big deal, why relabel 98% of the population?
Who relabelled 98% of the population?

You're starting to sound like Job with this deep state liberal agenda shit.
 

Scouse

Job-worshipper and all round follower of cunts.
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
27,475
but unlike @Scouse I think this is genuinely going to blow up in Trans-people's faces, and so do a lot of actual trans people:

Right then @DaGaffer :)

/flexes fingers


Non-binary also entered the Liberal Democrat manifesto, though Jo Swinson may now be regretting this decision. Non-binary is easy to announce; it’s rather more challenging to explain to the electorate — or to journalists. In a series of difficult interviews this week, she even denied the fact that every human being is either male or female. I’m a science teacher; if she had been one of my pupils, I think I would have despaired.
Starting deliberately confrontationally: So, shit science teacher doesn't follow science. But teacher, remember, not scientist - so I guess we can forgive.

"Challenging to explain to the <dumb as a box of frogs> electorate". Yes. I imagine it is, because even ones who are fully capable of understanding new (to them) concepts are up in arms about it. Doesn't mean they shouldn't try though.

I transitioned at the age of 44, having always struggled with my gender. By the age of three, I wanted to be one of the girls — though I had no idea why. I didn’t know whether boys felt the same way as me. I did, however, sense that the subject was one I could not broach: taboos kick in young
And a lot of this is about breaking those taboos - most especially for the young.

The terms ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ have become increasingly muddled. But they’re distinct concepts. Essentially, sex is about biology while gender is about psychology.
Absolutely. Though both you and @Wij have poo-pooed this idea in this thread. So it's interesting you've cherry-picked the thrust of the argument whilst disregarding much of the content therein.

While some may resent being told they have a sex, they do. It is one of two things: male or female.
Sadly, this teacher is mistaken as the science clearly shows otherwise and whatever s/he's teaching her kids is overly simplistic.

From the article I linked:
I think there's much greater diversity within male or female, and there is certainly an area of overlap where some people can't easily define themselves within the binary structure
So why artificially force people into that? Moreover - if it's not an issue that affects you (nonbinary demoninations of sex - you're still "a man", great) - why try to force others, who clearly don't fit your description to use it against both their will, and their actual biology?

Back to yours:
In gender terms, there is no binary to speak of, and everybody is non-binary
This is an utterly uncontroversial statement, (but you wouldn't think so around here). But whilst we're at this point - lets tot up the facts:

  • Sex is non-binary. (Most people fall squarely into "traditional" male or female - but as we as a species learn more we've found our ideas were previously inadequate. We've proven sex is non-binary in the same way that we can now prove the earth isn't flat (although that proof will never be enough for some - and in exactly the same way some flat-earthers will never accept sex isn't binary)
  • Gender is non-binary - and a much more muddled and less clear spectrum (not that it needs to be clear or un-muddled - that big "grey area" is only a threat to people who don't like the idea)
  • Sex and Gender are not "the same"

Shocking concepts in some places I know. But if we don't accept the above, completely, then no further adult discussion can be had on the nuances of the subject.

Now the crux of teach's argument. There are three paragraphs of wrongthink (to faux-reference Orwell (an action that seems to have become de-rigeur nowadays (despite, I think, the vast majority of people who quote him having never read a single paragraph of his actual works, considering how often he's quoted out of all context))) so bare with:

If we create a category for non-binary, then we by default create a category of ‘not non-binary’ or — more simply — binary. What happens to gender non-conforming men and women who do not want to sign up to being non-binary?
Because the conflation of sex and gender (even for me) is most definitely a thing this is quite an interesting/tricky sentence to address.

S/he's talking about sex. But lets pretend for a second s/he's talking about gender (just because that's what I did first time I looked at it):

If talking about gender, this whole sentence can be summed up like this: "What about me!!!!!!!!"

i.e. A man, who gender non-conforms, and living quite happily as a woman, but doesn't want to think of themselves as non-binary - prefering to think of s/himself as a binary: woman.

But you fucking are mate. Tough shit. You're of nonbinary gender.


But addressing it as it is - about sex: I see the issue very differently from this bl/ird. By trying to fix the issue by creating another bucket you're compounding a mistake. You don't just create another category of non-binary. If we are indeed doing that we're simply making (another) mistake. What we should be doing is moving everyone into the "non-binary" bucket - because that's what we are as a species.

Science says we're all on a spectrum. It's just that 99% of us are either hard left or hard right. But we're all on it.

Binary, as a definition, needs to die. (And non-binary, whilst more helpful, is a definition rooted in our past view (and if language corrupts thought then a new bucket called "non-binary" is only going to serve as a reminder that we used to (mistakenly) think of ourselves this way - and provoke the anger of the flat-earthers) - so a different name for our new understanding would be more helpful)).

I understand we work in "baby steps" though. And language also develops - so maybe we'll get there eventually.

The risk is that every-one is forced to choose between two new categories; non-binary and binary (which is in itself a new binary).
So, there's the solution. Right above. Describe the world as it actually is.

:)

Surely better to let everyone find their own path in life?
Kinda what all of this is about really. Enabling more people to do just that - because there are big problems for a small percentage of huge numbers of society who have to define themselves in a way they aren't.


Anyway. I'll only bother with the second, getting bored:
The new generation of LGBTQ+ activists may claim that the rush for transgender and non-binary rights mirrors the gay rights activism of 30 years ago, but those campaigners only ever fought for equal rights. They never campaigned for the right to change how other people think.
Yes they did. A campaign for equal rights is absolutely a campaign for getting people to see the world in a different way. A campaign for acceptance for homosexuals is a campaign for people who hate the gays to stop beating them up, to stop denying them work if they're openly camp, a campaign to allow gay men into straight mens changing rooms without straight men having a fucking hissy fit (and then beating the gay men up, en masse).

It's absolutely a campaign to change the way people think. To some extent or another, that's what all campaigns are.


Maybe one more sentence:
Neither did transsexuals used to want to compel thoughts: the aim was to pass unnoticed in society.
Maybe that was good enough for you mist/uss - born in 1969. Grew up in the 70's and the 80's when gays were getting beat up left right and centre. You wanted to be a woman and not get stared at, never mind not get beaten up. It was your dream to "pass unnoticed in society" - and you've achieved that dream.

Congratulations. Nobody really gives that much of a fuck about watching an adam's apple in a dress walking down the street. Even if you've got five o'clock shadow (though that's unlikely, because we've now got meds to help with that).

But it's not about you any more is it? That was your dream - and a laudible dream it was.

But dreams have moved on. Young people want to be recognised, and act overtly, however they fucking well like. Because that's who they are. And some of them want to be recognised as such - yet our ancient views mean they're brushing up against functional systems that are no longer fit for purpose.

So they're demanding, increasingly loudly, that these systems are changed so they can be recognised for what they are. And nothing more than that.


IMO - that'll happen. The old guard (us) will die out. The "controversy" will die with us - like it does with pretty much all controversial subjects (Darwin's ideas are still controversial even now for some people). I cannot agree with you @DaGaffer that this will "blow up in trans people's faces" - because I think it's already fucked for most of them - so any improvement (even imperfect new bucket-systems) is still an improvement.

Well. That's pretty much all I can be arsed saying about that :)


Can you tell today is the first day of my holiday? :D
 
Last edited:

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
14,324
Most of your argument is based on a shit article in SciAm which claims to show that sex is not binary. I already pointed out what guff that article is. Having atypical sexual characteristics does not make you less of a male or female. We are placental mammals. There are two sexes. It is not a spectrum. That is bollox.
 

Scouse

Job-worshipper and all round follower of cunts.
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
27,475
I wanted to make more edits to make it clearer, but it's a fucking mammoth post, and I've timed out.

So ner :p
 

Scouse

Job-worshipper and all round follower of cunts.
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
27,475
Most of your argument is based on a shit article in SciAm which claims to show that sex is not binary. I already pointed out what guff that article is. Having atypical sexual characteristics does not make you less of a male or female. We are placental mammals. There are two sexes. It is not a spectrum. That is bollox.
Science disagrees with you. But as I've posted a few links to science publications stating that, how about articles that take your more generally preferred argument format?

I'm absolutley not going to force you to argument-format-conform :)
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
14,324
Science disagrees with you. But as I've posted a few links to science publications stating that, how about articles that take your more generally preferred argument format?

I'm absolutley not going to force you to argument-format-conform :)
My god that is utter trash. How can you post that in a serious manner?

But the basic thrust of your argument then is the development of secondary sexual characteristics is complicated therefore any man can say he's a woman and it must be true?
 

dysfunction

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
8,811
My god that is utter trash. How can you post that in a serious manner?

But the basic thrust of your argument then is the development of secondary sexual characteristics is complicated therefore any man can say he's a woman and it must be true?
Its like that you tube video of a young short white guy saying he is a 7ft 60 year old Asian lady
 

Scouse

Job-worshipper and all round follower of cunts.
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
27,475
My god that is utter trash. How can you post that in a serious manner?
I didn't. I glibly posted some shit I saw which had twitter in it, (rather than articles from New Scientist that you generally roundly ignore).

I didn't even read it. Like all twitter threads, I can't actually read any of it without thinking "my god this is utter trash". Because that's still how I see twitter.


Now. Where's my VHS. I hear you can record a channel you're not even watching :)
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
14,324
Anyway. On hols too but have kids to entertain / subdue so don't have time to write essays.

Unless any of these 'sex is not binary' people can produce the 3rd gamete or show a person who can produce both sperm and eggs then all they are doing is trying to redefine sex to suit their agenda.

Not ineterested.
 

Scouse

Job-worshipper and all round follower of cunts.
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
27,475
Anyway. On hols too but have kids to entertain / subdue so don't have time to write essays.
#lifestylechoice ;)

Unless any of these 'sex is not binary' people can produce the 3rd gamete or show a person who can produce both sperm and eggs then all they are doing is trying to redefine sex to suit their agenda.

Not ineterested.
Fine. Completely ignore the sex side of the argument - but allow gender self-identification.

I know how you or I think about it doesn't amount to any sort of leguminous mound but in the interests of furthering reasonable debate there's potential common ground there.

It's not mandatory to agree on everything*. :)



























*but I'm right.
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
14,324
Fine but it shouldn't use words already used to mean sex and should not affect sex-based rights at all.

OK?
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
16,767
Who relabelled 98% of the population?

You're starting to sound like Job with this deep state liberal agenda shit.
98% of the population are not trans, and are therefore "CISGender" - Its really not a difficult calculation.
 

Scouse

Job-worshipper and all round follower of cunts.
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
27,475
98% of the population are not trans, and are therefore "CISGender" - Its really not a difficult calculation.
So, that's a correct label* for our new understanding then. One that describes 98% of us.

Progress! It's faaaaaan-tastic! :)















*shame it sounds like fucking hippy-speak. But it's not something I'll ever bother using in day-to-day conversation, so it's no biggie.
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
16,767
So, that's a correct label* for our new understanding then. One that describes 98% of us.

Progress! It's faaaaaan-tastic! :)















*shame it sounds like fucking hippy-speak. But it's not something I'll ever bother using in day-to-day conversation, so it's no biggie.
Why is it the "correct" label? Why is a prefix necessary?
 

Scouse

Job-worshipper and all round follower of cunts.
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
27,475
Why is it the "correct" label? Why is a prefix necessary?
Because, quite clearly, the old labels were inadequate in describing the actuality in full correctness.

Yes - it's been good enough (well, in our stuck-up judaeo christian west) - but it clearly can be improved upon.

I still don't get why you care tho. You can think it's a bag of shit - but it doesn't really affect you.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that the only place that affects you is on here. (Other than in your parent-fear, but then all parents have that, and it can't be helped).
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
16,767
Because, quite clearly, the old labels were inadequate in describing the actuality in full correctness.
Says who?

Yes - it's been good enough (well, in our stuck-up judaeo christian west) - but it clearly can be improved upon.

I still don't get why you care tho. You can think it's a bag of shit - but it doesn't really affect you.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that the only place that affects you is on here. (Other than in your parent-fear, but then all parents have that, and it can't be helped).
"Male" and "Female" have nothing to do with Judeo-Christianity, they are a function of biological dimorphism. There is no functional reason to add prefixes to "male" and "female" unless you have a political point to make. The only reason to do this is ensure that there is no "normal" (or if you prrefer, "baseline"). Which is why Orwell is the correct reference (and don't get sniffy with me, I've read 'em all), you control the language, you control the narrative.

It affects me in the context that decisions are being made with no consultation with anyone, and questioning "trans-women are women" can get you a visit from the plod for peddling hate speech, because someone else has decided what the new normal is and made it so.
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
14,324
Because, quite clearly, the old labels were inadequate in describing the actuality in full correctness.

Yes - it's been good enough (well, in our stuck-up judaeo christian west) - but it clearly can be improved upon.

I still don't get why you care tho. You can think it's a bag of shit - but it doesn't really affect you.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that the only place that affects you is on here. (Other than in your parent-fear, but then all parents have that, and it can't be helped).
It's only needed because trans-activists want to change what sexed-words mean to mean something other than sex. Almost as if they don't like the distinction between sex and gender really and want to blur the lines.
 

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
20,687
Heres a very simple question that requires you to dig into whatever diversion/denial tactic you employ .


If trans women are women then would you be just as happy to fuck a transwoman as a real one?
 

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
20,687
If your life depended on winning a running race would you blind pic an opponent from a group of women or trans women?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top Bottom